Evolution or Creationism?

[phileas007]

Creation scientists don't deny that organisms change over time but the difference is that they believe that the changes only bring about variations within their original kind, i.e., dogs remain dogs, birds remain birds, etc. Creation scientists teach that God originally put a large amount of scope for change into the original genes and that natural selection and environmental factors have brought about the varieties we see to day. This is not the same as the kind of changes that evolutionists like to postulate.

You have just perfectly demonstrated why what these people do, is just NOT science at all!

1. they believe instead of examining evidence
2. they fail to define what the meaning of "kind" is (both morphologically and on a genetic level)
   
3. "...scientists teach that god..." raises all red flags in the world!

and, of course, the greatest tell-tale of pseudoscience: presuppose the existance and veracity of the supernatural

Well, let's just consider that never has anything been observed to come from nothing, so where is all the matter/space for the universe supposed to have come from? Christians have a miracle maker (God), but evolutionists have a miracle without a miracle maker.

Don't project your misunderstanding of a "miracle" on a field of science you have never touched!
If placative claims of unresolved absolute truths is what you're after, then just insert "the spaghetti monster did it!" between the lines - works just fine.

Biology and biologist are two completely different subject.

what is biologist? what ARE you talking about?

 

[yesyoushould]

Believe what you like.

Ok? God is good.

 

[yesyoushould]

You have just perfectly demonstrated why what these people do, is just NOT science at all!

1. they believe instead of examining evidence
2. they fail to define what the meaning of "kind" is (both morphologically and on a genetic level)
   
3. "...scientists teach that god..." raises all red flags in the world!

Truth is truth long before some man said, "science".

1. Actually I can prove God, in myself. Your unbelief doesn't interest me.
2. We do not have to prove to any whom God is. God proves it inside every believer.
3. Science isn't God. Maybe for you? It is a creation. We are not foolish enough, by the grace of God, to worship creation.

 

[bhsmte]

I reject their religious beliefs since I don't agree with them. That what everybody does.
That's like saying I reject what Obama says when I don't like it but he is still my President. Just because he's President doesn't mean I have to agree with his views even if he get the whole White House agreeing with him.

What do religious beliefs have to do with a Phd biologists knowledge of biology?

You do realize, there are Phd biologists that are; Christian, agnostic, atheist, muslim, hindu and other types. The one thing all these folks share, is their training, education and knowledge of biology, which has zero to do with religion.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok? God is good.

If that works for you, go for it.

 

[Astrophile]

Even a doctor understand the "mechanics" of birth if that what you are referring to.

It was not what I was referring to. I think that it was biologists rather than doctors who found out how a man's testes produce sperm and how a woman's ovaries produce ova, and how the two get together. Also it was biologists rather than doctors who worked out the mechanisms of heredity and such matters as cell division, meiosis and mitosis, and the development of an embryo. Anyway, the point is that biologists can explain the origin of each of us as individuals (and that includes the biologists themselves).

I surely don't think biologist can speak outside the own biological brain (unless they are physical dead).

I don't understand this, but I suppose it means something to you.

I see my spiritual birth as real ( more real) than my physical birth.

Each to their own taste.

 

[Smidlee]

What do religious beliefs have to do with a Phd biologists knowledge of biology?

You do realize, there are Phd biologists that are; Christian, agnostic, atheist, muslim, hindu and other types. The one thing all these folks share, is their training, education and knowledge of biology, which has zero to do with religion.

I already explain this when man takes his theory which is a product of his mind and tries to use it to explain his own existence than that's is idolatry. Even God's people (Jews) were guilty of idolatry in the OT. They worshiped both God and Baal for example.

It doesn't how many degrees someone has they can't speak outside their head. It doesn't matter how smart someone think they are if their theory, evolution, includes the scientist then it's no longer science since it explain absolutely everything including man's belief in evolution which end up explaining nothing.

It was not what I was referring to. I think that it was biologists rather than doctors who found out how a man's testes produce sperm and how a woman's ovaries produce ova, and how the two get together. Also it was biologists rather than doctors who worked out the mechanisms of heredity and such matters as cell division, meiosis and mitosis, and the development of an embryo. Anyway, the point is that biologists can explain the origin of each of us as individuals (and that includes the biologists themselves).

I have read and heard a few biologist talk about dGRN and how they are interconnected something like a circuit board and would require "re-engineering" in order to change body plans. In order for evolution to be true they know these dGRN had to be a lot more flexible in the past than they are in the present since most resists change.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already explain this when man takes his theory which is a product of his mind and tries to use it to explain his own existence than that's is idolatry.

No, it isn't. Idolatry is where you worship a physical object as a god.

Using evidence to explain natural phenomena is science, not religion.

 

[Smidlee]

No, it isn't. Idolatry is where you worship a physical object as a god.

Using evidence to explain natural phenomena is science, not religion.

What made an idol an idol is not the physical object. The scriptures makes this very clear. An Idol is nothing. It's the idea that man can explain his own existence and/or relate something from mind as claim it's his creator. It's man imagination which is on evil that God judges.

There is nothing wrong with a golden calf but when Israel claim that "This is what bought us out of Egypt" is the sin.

 

[bhsmte]

I already explain this when man takes his theory which is a product of his mind and tries to use it to explain his own existence than that's is idolatry. Even God's people (Jews) were guilty of idolatry in the OT. They worshiped both God and Baal for example.

It doesn't how many degrees someone has they can't speak outside their head. It doesn't matter how smart someone think they are if their theory, evolution, includes the scientist then it's no longer science since it explain absolutely everything including man's belief in evolution which end up explaining nothing.


I have read and heard a few biologist talk about dGRN and how they are interconnected something like a circuit board and would require "re-engineering" in order to change body plans. In order for evolution to be true they know these dGRN had to be a lot more flexible in the past than they are in the present since most resists change.

In other words, you really don't listen to a Phd biologist, when they talk about biology you don't agree with.

So, this really means, you know more about biology, than a Phd biologist, congratulations.

 

[Smidlee]

In other words, you really don't listen to a Phd biologist, when they talk about biology you don't agree with.

So, this really means, you know more about biology, than a Phd biologist, congratulations.

When a biologist is speaking out of his expertise then I suppose to question him. No I don't believe the voice of a biologist is the voice of God. You don't accept engineers view of ID because it goes against your worldview/ religion. That's why atheist always tries to uplift biologists over everyone else.
So watch out there , that's a two edged sword you are swinging. It will cut both ways.

 

[bhsmte]

When a biologist is speaking out of his expertise then I suppose to question him. No I don't believe the voice of a biologist is the voice of God. You don't accept engineers view of ID because it goes against your worldview/ religion. That's why atheist always tries to uplift biologists over everyone else.

I don't think anyone is expecting a biologist to be the voice of God.

I would expect a Phd biologist to be an expert on biology though, wouldn't you?

So when 99% of the Phd biologists state they agree strongly with the theory of evolution, does this mean you stop listening to them, because you feel you know more about real biology then they do?

 

[Smidlee]

I don't think anyone is expecting a biologist to be the voice of God.

I would expect a Phd biologist to be an expert on biology though, wouldn't you?

So when 99% of the Phd biologists state they agree strongly with the theory of evolution, does this mean you stop listening to them, because you feel you know more about real biology then they do?

Since the theory of evolution includes explain away the biologists then absolutely not. They are trying to speak outside themselves. That's a dog chasing his own tail. Only God knows how to create biologist.

 

[Loudmouth]

When a biologist is speaking out of his expertise then I suppose to question him. No I don't believe the voice of a biologist is the voice of God. You don't accept engineers view of ID because it goes against your worldview/ religion.

We don't accept the ID views because they are not backed by evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Since the theory of evolution includes explain away the biologists then absolutely not. They are trying to speak outside themselves. That's a dog chasing his own tail. Only God knows how to create biologist.

No way around it then, you claim to know more about real biology, than biologists do.

Hope that works out for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

What made an idol an idol is not the physical object. The scriptures makes this very clear. An Idol is nothing. It's the idea that man can explain his own existence and/or relate something from mind as claim it's his creator.

Chapter and verse, please. Do our parents become idols because we claim they made us? What about sexual reproduction? Should we not teach children that egg and sperm combine to make a baby, because that would be idolatry?

 

[Smidlee]

We don't accept the ID views because they are not backed by evidence.

I see a lot of evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Smidlee]

Chapter and verse, please. Do our parents become idols because we claim they made us? What about sexual reproduction? Should we not teach children that egg and sperm combine to make a baby, because that would be idolatry?

You are the only know you made this silly claim. Just because I install Wnidows 8 on my computer doesn't mean the creator of Windows 8.

 

[Smidlee]

No way around it then, you claim to know more about real biology, than biologists do.

Hope that works out for you.

No, I claim I know the ultimate Biologist who created all other biologist. You are the one who rejects the Biologist of biologists.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I claim I know the ultimate Biologist who created all other biologist. You are the one who rejects the Biologist of biologists.

Sure, with 99% of these created biologists (according to you) that agree with evolution.

Kinda leaves you in a tough spot.